Where did Christianity come Frum?

[Jagella]

(No, that's not a typo in the title of this thread.)

Consider the mysterious and fascinating sect that's become known as the "Cult of John Frum." This sect originated on an island in the Pacific during World War II. The island had become "invaded" by American soldiers who were based there as they advanced west against the Japanese. The Americans brought with them much that seemed magical to the natives such as food that didn't appear to the natives to be gathered or grown. They had planes and trucks and bulldozers as well as as strange things that made strange sounds (phonographs and radios). And unlike some of the white men who had previously visited the island (the British and the French), the Americans soldiers treated the natives well.

So one day the Americans left the island. Suddenly all the marvels they brought with them were gone much of it dumped into the sea. But their memory was not forgotten as the natives began to "worship America." They fashioned effigies of the American planes, sang patriotic American songs as best they could remember them, and marched with wooden "rifles" as the American soldiers had done.

But perhaps the most fascinating belief of this sect involved some of the visions some of them started to have. Some of the natives started seeing a mysterious man at night on the beach. He looked like an American soldier, and he uttered prophecies that some day the Americans will return.

This man become known as "John Frum," and he is evidently based on a soldier named John who was from America.

Anyway, the story of the John-Frum sect demonstrates how religions like Christianity can originate. No real gods or miracles are needed. All you need are superstitious and primitive people who are quick to look for gods whom they hope will save them. Yes, the Cult of John Frum is based on real places, things, people, and events. However, these places, things, people, and events are embellished with magical properties by the people who may have witnessed them. I see no reason at all why Christianity need be any different from this sect in these ways.

Question for Debate: Why dismiss the Cult of John Frum as superstition while insisting that Christianity is "the truth"?

John 14:3:

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.

[Goose]

I already explained that trusting only the words of "experts" is not sufficient to demonstrate anything's truth.

It’s a valid way to support a premise especially when virtually every expert is saying the same thing.

Experts ?
99% of those alleged 'experts' are FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS.

Why do you have experts in quotes? Those experts I'm referring to have Phd's in related fields. And what do you mean by FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS? Do you mean conservative scholars?

They HAVE to believe in Jesus - else they lose their faith, their religion, their friends, perhaps even their job - we've seen it happen many times.

I don't know that they have to believe. But they also have a duty to be intellectually honest. They are also held to account by peer reviews.

Worthless as evidence.

Your disdain for scholarship speaks volumes.

How many NON-Christian contemporary ancient historians, respected and published in the field, have investigated the evidence and concluded Jesus existed ?

Maybe a few ?
Can you name any such ?
(I've heard of just three IIRC, compared with thousands of faithful Christian 'scholars'.)

I can name a few off the top of my head.

Atheists: Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen

Jews: Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby

Some of these atheist scholars have Phds from institutions like Princeton (Ehrman, Fredriksen). What's interesting it has been the atheist scholars who have lead the charge combating the idea that Jesus wasn't real.

Those alleged experts are the most biased sample you could find on the planet - faithful believers with a personal connection to Jesus.

They aren't "alleged" experts. They are bonafide experts with Phds in related fields.

Or does that silly argument only apply to YOUR faith ?

Not at all. If you were paying attention instead of ranting about one thing I said, you would have noticed that I said I would consider an argument from the major of experts on evolutionary theory a valid argument for evolution. You don't see me whining about how they are a biased sample of commited evolutionists and have to support the evolutionary position or would lose there teaching jobs at universities.

[Goose]

You're looking at John Frum through modern glasses. If you did the same thing with Christianity, I submit you would not be a believer.

I'm looking at them both through the same methdology. I've provided a valid criterion by which you can force me to abandon Christianity. Prove Jesus didn't exist.

Conversely I've also given a criterion by which you can force me to accept the John Frum cult. Prove John Frum really existed.

[Jagella]

Until you can either prove Frum was real or prove Jesus wasn’t, I think we are basically done here with everything else being a diversion.

Obviously, demanding proof for the reality of John Frum or the unreality of Jesus sets the bar way too high for anybody to make their case. It appears that a bulwark has been raised to make sure Christian faith is secured. So I agree that we are "done here."

But I suppose I'm never done examining Christianity. I think that discovering good evidence for Jesus is an exciting possibility. Maybe some day a scroll dated to 30 CE might be found near Jerusalem written by a Greek trader doing business in Israel. He might describe Jesus carrying out his ministry and getting crucified by Pilate. Such evidence would essentially disprove mythicism.

And if such evidence for Jesus is ever discovered, I have no doubt that Bible scholars and Christian apologists will jump on it. They will quickly dispense with their current arguments seeing them as "irrelevant." If you were to ask them about their consensus-of-scholars argument, then I think they would answer: "Are you crazy? Why bother with such nonsense when we have the 'Jesus scroll?'"

[historia]

[Replying to post 20 by historia]

Use of the word "likely" leaves the door wide open for "not at all".

This is true of all historical inquiry. Since we cannot reproduce the past, we can never be 100% certain about what actually happened -- especially when dealing with ancient history. The historical method only allows us to conclude what most likely or probably happened.

And we haven't begun to look at the percentages for the Jesus character being sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, or the nebulous Holy Ghost.

Since the historical method only allows us to conclude what probably happened, and miracles are, by definition, improbable (if not in fact impossible), they lie beyond historical analysis.

This is why you'll see many scholarly works on the historical Jesus that simply exclude the virgin birth and other miracles from their analysis.

[historia]

One thing I do know for sure, Carrier does not accept what that supposed consensus might conclude about Jesus. He is a mythicist who has concluded that Jesus probably did not exist.

That's precisely why I'm quoting him, of course. Even though Carrier disagrees with the scholarly consensus on this particular issue -- and spends the course of two books arguing against it -- he nevertheless affirms in no uncertain terms the importance of the consensus of experts in discovering the truth.

He writes in Proving History, pg. 21:

The correct procedure in historical argument is to seek a consensus among all qualified experts who agree with the basic principle of rational-empirical history (and who practice what they preach).

By "correct procedure" I mean this is the only truth-finding procedure that performs well enough to trust.

Quite so. Carrier realizes, rightly, that the task he and anyone else who disagrees with a particular scholarly consensus must undertake is to publish convincing arguments that ultimately change the consensus.

Simply dismissing the scholarly consensus out-of-hand as unimportant -- as you, Joey, and others here have done -- is an untenable position, as all of us regularly rely on such consensus in forming our beliefs. Discounting it only when it proves inconvenient to a pet theory is the usual move of science deniers and conspiracy theorists.

By the way, how much do we really know about that consensus? It appears to me that this consensus is assumed. I've seen no real evidence that most Bible scholars truly believe that Jesus was historical. Have Bible scholars been polled to see what they believe? I don't think so.

The consensus is usually measured through a literature review rather than a survey. Which is actually the more useful approach, by my estimation, as we're more interested in the conclusions of scholars who have actually researched and published on an issue than the opinions of all possible scholars in a field regardless of their area of specialization.

The reason why Goose, myself, and even mythicist authors themselves readily accept that there is a consensus that Jesus existed is because there have been thousands of papers published on this topic over the past 50 years and you can count on one hand the number of peer-reviewed works that have argued Jesus likely didn't exist.

In the case of New Testament studies, the relevant information regarding the historicity of Jesus is available to laypersons as well as scholars. After reading and considering that information, I've concluded that there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus.

While it's certainly true that the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is available to both experts and amateurs alike, amateurs such as yourself -- and everyone else in this thread -- lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the evidence.

Lest anyone object otherwise, I'll let Richard Carrier once again explain (ibid, pg. 19):

[T]he skills involved in all four levels of [historical] analysis, in particular the fourth [historical analysis proper], require honing under the guidance of watchful experts, since experience only teaches when you know when you're done something wrong so you can correct and avoid such mistakes in the future. Without such feedback you can never course-correct, and you will simply persist in any errors you became enamored with at the start.

You must have experts at hand to guide you for many sustained years, such as professors and professional advisors, who can quickly identify common mistakes in your arguments, or, by informing you of facts overlooked, reveal how easy it is to overlook important facts and show you how to avoid doing that. Then, they must ensure that you draw conclusions from those facts correctly (which means logically). All so you will learn what constitutes an error and how to correct or avoid such errors in the future. Professional historians receive years of training like this. Accordingly, their subsequent work product is much more reliable.

For all these reasons, laypeople must depend on qualified experts to report to them what most likely happened in the past and why.

Rightly so.

I don't mean to be overly critical here, Jagella, but your own analysis of the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is, at best, superficial for the reasons Carrier spells out here. You would be wise to not put much stock in it.

[historia]

How many NON-Christian contemporary ancient historians, respected and published in the field, have investigated the evidence and concluded Jesus existed ?

Maybe a few ?
Can you name any such ?

This is easy to do, of course. Goose already provided a few names, I'll add a few more.

Recent atheist and agnostic scholars include Maurice Casey, Zeba Crook, James Crossley, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Robert Funk, Jeffrey Gibson, Michael Goulder, Daniel Gullotta, R. Joseph Hoffman, Gerd Lüdemann, Jack Miles, and Christina Petterson.

Jewish scholars include Marc Zvi Brettler, Amy-Jill Levine, Alan Segal, Geza Vermes, and many, many others. Internet atheists often forget that there is a rather large group of Jewish scholars that have, as part of their own research into Second Temple Judaism, also researched Christian origins. I don't know of a single one who has concluded Jesus likely didn't exist.

99% of those alleged 'experts' are FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS.

They HAVE to believe in Jesus - else they lose their faith, their religion, their friends, perhaps even their job - we've seen it happen many times.

While many biblical scholars are Christians, a large percentage who have engaged in historical Jesus research -- such as Dale C. Allison, E. P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg -- are liberals. Many work at secular institutions, too.

Most of these liberal scholars don't HAVE to believe in a historical Jesus, just as many of them don't believe in a historical Moses or Abraham. Certainly, liberal Christian theology doesn't require any such beliefs.

And so, in reality, we have a diversity of scholars from various backgrounds who have concluded on historical grounds that Jesus existed.

I'm afraid the same can not be said for mythicism, which is promoted exclusively by atheist advocates like Richard Carrier. If there is a claim that can be made to bias here, surely the homogeneity of the mythicists is the more glaring example. Although, to be fair, there are simply too few to draw any conclusions.

[historia]

And don't forget, this consensus-of-Bible-scholars only addresses whether or not some dude named Jesus actually existed. It doesn't address his supposed miracles, his claimed resurrection, nor the idea that he was God.

What real difference does it make if these myths were tacked onto some real dude or if the dude was also mythological? None that I can determine. The myths didn't happen in either case.

This question assumes that the only thing that matters here are supernatural claims. I don't share that perspective. History matters, regardless of whether we're talking about miracles or not.

But the broader point you are making here is certainly well taken. Jesus' mere existence is neither controversial nor antithetical to atheism. From a purely practical point of view, arguing against it by adopting fringe, discredited theories is an unforced error on the part of atheist advocates.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 20 by historia]

Use of the word "likely" leaves the door wide open for "not at all".

This is true of all historical inquiry.

The possibility of "not at all" is an idol with feet of clay on which to build a mind-and-money cult.

[Jagella]

Even though Carrier disagrees with the scholarly consensus on this particular issue -- and spends the course of two books arguing against it -- he nevertheless affirms in no uncertain terms the importance of the consensus of experts in discovering the truth.

Again, I haven't read that book, so I'm not sure if you're quoting Carrier in context. But as far as I can tell, the consensus of Bible scholars supporting a historical Jesus (if it really exists) has not in my opinion made a good case for the historicity of Jesus. So I'm sorry if my skepticism troubles you. If I am wrong, then I'd prefer to make my own mistakes rather than rely on other people to make mistakes for me!

...Carrier realizes, rightly, that the task he and anyone else who disagrees with a particular scholarly consensus must undertake is to publish convincing arguments that ultimately change the consensus.

Why not come up with arguments and evidence that get at the truth? You seem to argue that our goal should be to make our ideas popular and impressive. I'm not sure how doing so can lead to the progress of human knowledge. Seeking approval among the "consensus" won't get us far in discovering new truths. Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein would never have changed our way of looking at the world if they only concerned themselves with tickling the ears of the powers that be.

Simply dismissing the scholarly consensus out-of-hand as unimportant -- as you, Joey, and others here have done -- is an untenable position, as all of us regularly rely on such consensus in forming our beliefs.

It appears you are not reading carefully what I've posted on this thread. My position is that agreeing with a consensus of presumed experts is possibly sensible assuming it's all you have to go on. However, if you have good reason to believe the consensus is wrong, then the sensible thing to do is to go with reason rather than popularity.

So where am I going wrong here? Do you disagree with this reasoning? Would you tell somebody to agree with the consensus even though they think it's wrong?

Discounting it only when it proves inconvenient to a pet theory is the usual move of science deniers and conspiracy theorists.

LOL--so now you are equating real-Jesus apologetics with science. That's very flattering to real-Jesus apologists I'm sure.

But of course Biblical scholarship isn't a science, and it isn't a historical discipline either. It is an effort on the part of various Christian groups--mostly liberal Christians--to influence the public getting them to believe that the Bible contains relevant information regarding morality and the historicity of the stories in it. As such, the version of the Bible presented to us should not be trusted.

The reason why Goose, myself, and even mythicist authors themselves readily accept that there is a consensus that Jesus existed is because there have been thousands of papers published on this topic over the past 50 years and you can count on one hand the number of peer-reviewed works that have argued Jesus likely didn't exist.

Thinking this way would make you flunk an elementary-statistics course. It's not enough to claim that "thousands of papers published on this topic over the past 50 years" constitutes evidence that a majority of Bible scholars do in fact believe that Jesus is historical. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. You need to go a step further and actually poll these scholars to see what they have concluded about the historicity of Jesus.

But if it makes you feel any better, I do believe that most Bible scholars agree that Jesus existed. The evidence you are posting to prove your case is very sloppy, but you are probably right that most scholars accept a historical Jesus.

While it's certainly true that the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is available to both experts and amateurs alike, amateurs such as yourself -- and everyone else in this thread -- lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the evidence.

So we're too stupid and/or ignorant to sensibly judge whether or not Jesus existed. If that's the case, then you need to tell all those "village Christians" that they cannot really conclude that Jesus did exist. They're not qualified!

In other words, you are being very biased. You conclude that the average Joe mythicist "lack(s) the necessary background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the evidence" while you don't make this same remark about the average person who does believe in a historical Jesus.

And you have also painted yourself into a corner here. By insisting that a person needs to be an expert to assess the evidence for Jesus' historicity, you are unwittingly admitting that the evidence is far from clear! If the evidence supporting a historical Jesus was very robust, then anybody could see that it is good evidence.

I don't mean to be overly critical here, Jagella, but your own analysis of the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is, at best, superficial...

OK, so it is your obviously biased Christian apologetic opinion that my analysis of the evidence for Jesus is "superficial." Great. Now I want to see how I'm wrong. Please demonstrate how my logic is flawed or how I have my facts wrong. Otherwise, concede that trusting a majority of Bible scholars to tell us the truth about Jesus is foolish.

[Clownboat]

Let me be clearer then. There was no American soldier named John Frum in the region at the time. He doesn’t exist and never did.

Perhaps he went by another name and that has been lost in translation?
You can't just ignore: "In some versions of the story, a native man named Manehivi, using the alias "John Frum", began appearing among the native people of Tanna"
"Others contend that John Frum was a kava-induced spirit vision. Said to be a manifestation of Keraperamun"
Therefore, why would you expect to see a John Frum in American service records? Why do you get to insist that this spirit vision or native man would have American service records?

"In 1941, followers of John Frum rid themselves of their money in a frenzy of spending, left the missionary churches, schools, villages and plantations, and moved inland to participate in traditional feasts, dances and rituals."
Why would they do this?
They even have a "John Frum Day" in Vanuatu.
Are you saying that all the believers are liars?

I know he didn’t exist. So do the scholars who study the cult. If he had existed there would be American military service records supporting his existence. There aren’t.

False, you only claim to know that a service man named John Frum didn't exist. You don't know that a spirit vision or a native man behind the religion didn't exist. Seriously, are all the believers liars? We even have believers being publicly humiliated for this religion. Why would they do that for a lie?

Could any of your answers possibly explain how a Jesus, Mohammed etc... myth could evolve over time?